Reason(s)
for Denial: "You have NOT served sufficient time for punishment"
& "Release at this time would involve
an unreasonable risk to the public."

*36..month deferment was the result of
Acting Chairperson S. Landreman amending the 24-month deferment recommendation
given by Commissioner Davidson

Third Parole Eligibility Date: 8/7/14Outcome:
Waived Appearance

Based upon the
past parole decisions and prevailing changes in corrections since
Truth-in-Sentencing was implemented, parole consideration was voluntarily waived and remains waived pending changes
to the parole process and criteria for consideration under PAC Rules.

Rehabilitation
History

See "Supportive Educational
& Rehabilitative Documentation" List

Personal Testimonial

In reviewing the present and
past correctional and parole policies, the current system shows an inexplicable
disparity in sentence lengths and time served before
parole or other form of release; regardless of clear indications
of rehabilitation, the discretionary functions of custody reduction and parole
releases have all but stopped for "Old Law"
inmates. While I can never grasp the responsibility of reviewing people
convicted of serious crimes for custody reduction or parole
release, the people vested with that authority have a duty to use discretion
impartially and based on all evidence of rehabilitation, not to impose a
secondary judgment of the offense. In almost 20 years of incarceration, I have
completed every program required of me and many more taken voluntarily. I have
gained the benefits of education, personal growth and maturity, and
understanding of the affects of my actions. I can never change what I did, and
what I did shouldn't be how I am defined in a "correctional"
system. If I must serve all of my sentence for my crime, I accept that, but I
was sentenced with the expectation of genuine parole consideration of my
rehabilitation—that is all I am asking for now; direction to
earn a second chance at life through parole.

Parole
Decision Errors

Commissioner Emily Davidson
reported that, "At the time of the offense you had identified with an
anarchy group and were reported to speak of a revolution killing
and injuring officers." This was not accurate. My co­defendant
made these statements and applied them to both of us in his statement for my
pre-sentence investigation report. This was how the statements
were included in the record in my sentencing transcript. At the hearing I
explained this and admitted I never opposed these statements when he made them.
Neither was there any "group". These inaccurate
statements are very prejudicial in her report and decision.

You have served 15 years of a 50 year sentence
for 1St Deg Intent Homicide (Attempt)(w/Use of Dang Weapon)(Conceal ID). In Feb
1996, law enforcement responded to a
report of a business burglary and encountered you exiting the building. One
officer identified himself and
directed you to stop, and in response, you turned around and shot a 40 caliber
pistol with a laser site at the officer. Fortunately, the officer was wearing a cavalier vest, and the bullet
lodged in the chest area the vest was covering. At the time of the offense you had identified with an anarchy group
and were reported to speak of a revolution killing and injuring officers. At
today's hearing, you explained the
loss of your father at a young age resulted in emotional struggles in which you
were unable to process your feelings.
This led to acting out as a juvenile and feelings of extreme anger. During this
incarceration, you were able to work through these emotions with the assistance of PSU staff. You have also completed
recommended programming of CGIP, Anger Management, and Vocational Education in Braille Transcription.
You have participated in a number of volunteer programs including the BRICK and Challenges and Possibilities. You have
attempted to engage in victim offender dialogue through Restorative Justice.
You have also obtained higher
education courses and currently work at BSI. You have made significant progress
during this incarceration, as evidenced
by your accomplishments. Unfortunately, this positive progress was at the
expense of an officer's safety and a community's security. Therefore, continued
time is warranted to address punishment. Institution conduct has been positive
with no problems in 10 years. This
is expected to continue. Residence plan lists to live with a friend in
Cumberland and you have also identified a number of families who are supportive. This requires agent
approval when more time frame appropriate.

Note:
Comments by the District Attorney's office, strongly opposed to release were
available for today's hearing.

This
exposé letter is created and written by a collective of inmates affected by the
DOC and who bear witness to the corruption. Anyone

who reads this and finds it
troubling should investigate the issues for a better understanding and contact
their state government legislators, representatives, and the DOC Secretary, Mr.
Edward Wall.

NOTE: DOC Secretary Edward Wall
has scheduled a community forum to discuss parole issues and mental illness in the DOC. This forum will be held on September 27, 2013 5 to 7 pm at
Fountain of Life Church--633 W. Badger Rd., Madison, WI 53713.

Simply put, the Wisconsin
Department of Corrections is a state-created and sponsored business that trades
in human suffering and is structured in such a way that the government will not
allow it to fail--a condition synonymous to government bailout
businesses. This agency relies on public fear—a fear that is so
often generated and exaggerated by politicians. And this fear of needing to
protect the public at all costs has resulted in the exponential growth of the
financial costs and demands on the taxpayers to support the
warehousing of Wisconsin citizens.

Obviously, societies cannot function without an option
for incarceration for serious crime; however,
there can be better, more effective, and more humanitarian means by which we
treat those we incarcerate, as a society. The administration of the Department
of Corrections—in Madison and in the
individual prisons—often perpetrates lies and deception against the public's perception
through the misnomer that is in the title and supposed purpose of the agency—corrections. This practice has to change in order
to change the system as a whole.

Inmates and their families
shoulder the burden of incarceration more directly than anyone else, and we are
in the best position to see the inconsistencies, maltreatment, and malfeasance
that is so prevalent in the Wisconsin Department of Corrections.
If this agency is so concerned with corrections and rehabilitation, why does
the DOC intentionally deny inmates access into their required treatment
programs—programs that must be completed for parole eligible inmates before any
genuine consideration for parole can be given? The answer given is always the abundance of inmates needing the limited
resources of programs; however if this is the answer, the solution should be obvious—hire outside
agencies who specialize in rehabilitative treatment programming.
Instead, the DOC would rather deny inmates the chance for early release on parole. Moreover, the DOC admittedly would place a
Truth-in-Sentencing inmate with a short sentence of confinement ahead of
an Old Law inmate who could be paroled if their program needs were resolved. Therefore, this policy and practice creates a de facto authority within the DOC for parole denial, because the DOC knows the
Parole Commission will not parole a person without the singular criteria of
program participation/completion being met. This in one of many reasons why Old
Law, parole eligible inmates are being held until their Mandatory Release (MR) dates or even past then to their Maximum Discharge
(Ml)) dates when the inmate's offense places
him/her under the Presumptive Mandatory Release (PMR) legislation. It's an
unfair and corrupt practice that
must be addressed.

Another of the catch-22 policies and
practices that the Department of Correction and the Parole Commission
employs to deny eligible inmates parole and/or a lower security classification
is the misdirection and confusion of respective duties and
responsibilities. For instance, the Department of Corrections, via
the Bureau of Offender Classification and Movement (BOCM), will
not lower an inmate's security classification for progression through the
system to minimum unless the Parole Commission gives the parole eligible inmate
an 11-month deferment or less; however, the Parole Commission
will not authorize a 11-month deferment without programming needs
being met. The Department of Corrections often tells inmates that the Parole
Commission can "endorse" an inmate for a program,
but the Parole Commission has no authority to "endorse"
treatment programming—their authority does not extend beyond the granting or denying of parole. The Parole Commission tells the
inmate that the DOC can give minimum custody without an 11-month deferment, and
while this fact may be true in reality, it is not true in practice. In addition to this, the Parole
Commission rarely paroles anyone not in minimum custody, so the continuous back and forth and shifting of responsibility
leaves the parole eligible inmate
without recourse to earn parole or minimum custody. In discussing the issue of
parole deferments, it should also be
brought to light that the Parole Commission—via Kathleen Nagel, Chairperson, as appointed by Governor Walker (a
governor who is steadfast in his decision to not grant any clemency petitions during his term in office)—has raised a
significant number of inmate
deferments without any justifiable reason. Men who have progressed over years
of good conduct with numerous
achievements have been receiving increased deferments without any negative change in circumstance. The obvious
indication is the political agenda of a governor who opposes any type of discretionary release in response to
rehabilitation. It is not coincidence that
an author and proponent of Truth-in-Sentencing would enact a de facto policy directive to his appointee that eliminates true parole
consideration for Old Law, parole eligible inmates so that these inmates receive the same treatment as
TIS inmates for release, with MR dates being equivalent confinement periods.

All of this is compounded by the
existence of Truth-in-Sentencing (TIS). This bifurcated system has the effect
of clogging the system for Old Law, parole eligible inmates. When a TIS inmate receives
a sentence. of 2-3 years confinement time, they are most often given a minimum
security classification. This means the limited space in minimum
security—a security classification that is
most often required by the Parole Commission to grant a parole—is taken up by
TIS inmates. The effect is that Old Law parole eligible
inmates are again denied a reasonable chance to earn a parole.
Truth-in-Sentencing legislation has had the worst affect on the prison
population expansion and the significant confinement
sentences being given. The DOC must now address how it will care for inmates
that will be, in the system for 20, 30, or 40 years. How can society truly
believe any inmate having served such sentences will ever be able to properly
reintegrate?

All of these issues illustrate
how the Old Law, parole eligible inmates are being prejudiced and by
extension so are. their families, friends, and loved ones. However, the abuse
of the inmate population and their family and friends does not
end with these direct and malicious policies and practices.
The DOC also creates rules—the Administrative Code and Institutional Manual and
Procedures (IMP5)—that are often not followed or are
changed at the convenience of the DOC. For
instance, inmates are forced by the provisions of the Administrative Code to
save a portion of their income in a release
account up to currently $5000.00. There is no way an inmate making on
average .200 an hour will ever save that amount. Even more duplicitous is the
fact that the

inmates
do not collect interest on this account; yet, it is ignorant to believe the DOC
is not. How is the misappropriation of the accumulated
interest of the inmate population not malfeasance? If the
Wisconsin government wanted to investigate fraud, the investigation should
start with the DOC. This fraud is most evident
and plain in the Inmate Complaint Review System (ICRS). This system
is structured to afford inmates an option for addressing grievances; however,
in actuality, the system is nothing more than a biased and
token system that is enforced by Inmate Complaint Examiners
(ICEs) who do little to no investigation on complaints. As an investigative department,
the ICRS dismisses probably 85-90% of all inmate complaints. Of course not all complaints
are valid, but mathematically, that percentage is evidence of bias and an
ineffective system. It's expected given most ICEs are former guards or DOC
staff who are predisposed to distrusting and ignoring inmate
concerns. However, as a multi-million dollar system that employees hundreds of
people, the taxpayers are literally flushing their tax money down the drain. When it comes to money, the DOC is willing
to go to extremes in creating rules. For instance, the DOC forces inmates to send even small property items out via
UPS at an exorbitant rate because of
contracted kick backs. This is also clear in the phone system the DOC employs,
the limited property vendors, canteen, etc. These are just a few of the ways in
which the DOC creates or uses rules to abuse inmates and their families, but
there are many others to anyone interested
in looking into the matter.

Mental illness and the inmate
health system are abysmal. Uneducated guards pass out medications that could be
life threatening if improperly given. The understaffing of needed medical professionals borders on cruel and
unusual punishment. To that fact, institutions, such as Oshkosh Correctional Institution (OSCI), on a
routine basis allow inmate medication lapses of a week or more—these are medications that are critical
in nature (i.e. blood pressure medication, cholesterol medications, psychotropic medications, etc.) or have
adverse side affects if abruptly stopped.
Moreover, Health Services staff routinely postpones scheduled doctor
appointments for months to even a
year or more based on understaffing. Yet, again, complaints on these issues
fall on deaf ears when I brought through the Inmate Complaint Review
System to uncaring and bias Inmate
Complaint Examiners. This area of abuse is in serious need of attention and
correction.

All and all, the DOC is a flawed
and ineffective system that is more abusive than corrective, and it
doesn't need to be that way. The administration of the DOC should be more
vigilant in the treatment of those they are legally and duty-bound to care for
and supervise. On behalf of the inmates and their loved ones who
are most affected, we would implore change to make this system
truly one of corrections.

This blog is a companion to our Parole web page. Wisconsin has 2887 prisoners who are eligible for parole but are denied year after year. We are part of a campaign to see that these people get a second chance. They are all long past their parole dates. We want to spread the message loud and clear that people DO Change. Below are some of the stories and profiles of the many people stuck in a broken and wasteful system.